Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ONEQ vs SPHQ: how they differ

ONEQ and SPHQ hold 13% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and SPHQ hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and SPHQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQSPHQ
APPLE INC10.04%4.51%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.04%3.54%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.93%4.82%
LAM RESEARCH CORP0.87%4.10%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC0.78%2.80%
QUALCOMM INC0.58%2.03%
KLA CORP0.55%3.27%
APPLOVIN CORP0.41%1.56%
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP0.39%2.15%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.36%2.28%
ADOBE INC0.23%1.45%
CONSTELLATION ENERGY CORP0.23%0.99%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in SPHQ
NVIDIA CORP 11.24%Visa Inc. 4.69%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%Mastercard Inc. 4.32%
AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%General Electric Co. 4.16%
ALPHABET INC 4.85%Caterpillar Inc. 3.78%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Procter & Gamble Co. (The) 3.46%
ALPHABET INC 4.48%Coca-Cola Co. (The) 3.34%
TESLA INC 3.58%GE Vernova Inc. 3.15%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.03%Merck & Co., Inc. 2.87%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

ONEQ and SPHQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
SPHQ
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityInvesco
What it isNasdaq CompositeS&P 500 Quality
Total return, 1 year+20.6%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%99.9%
Holdings102299

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

SPHQ in plain words

SPHQ is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 99 positions, with the top ten at 40.7%. It sat 6.1% below its high of Jun 30, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ONEQ or SPHQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and SPHQ returned +17.4%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or SPHQ?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and SPHQ charges 0.15%, so SPHQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and SPHQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 100% of SPHQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 13% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

ONEQ against SPHQ, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ONEQ against SPHQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ONEQ-SPHQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources